SYED MAHABOOB RAJU Vs. HABIBSHA GARIBSHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner alleges that he is the owner of Survey Nos. 54 and 55 situated in village Angalgaon, Taluka Partur, District Parbhani, and that he is in possession of the said lands. The opponent filed against the petitioner a suit in the Court of the Mamlatdar at Partur, under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act II of 1906, alleging that he was in possession of the suit lands and that the petitioner was causing obstruction to him. On October 28, 1963, the Mamlatdar dismissed the suit holding that the opponent was not in possession of the said lands. Against this, the opponent filed a revision application before the Collector. This revision application was heard by the Deputy Collector and by a judgment dated November 29, 1964, he allowed the revision application. He set aside the finding of fact of the Mamlatdar that the opponent was not in possession of the suit lands.

(2.) SECTION 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, being Bombay Act No. II of 1906, provides that there shall be no appeal from any order passed by a Mamlatdar under the Act, but the Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under the Act, and if he considers that any proceeding, finding or order in such suit is illegal or improper, he may, after due notice to the parties, pass such order thereon, not inconsistent with the Act, as he thinks fit. The Collector has power to delegate the revisional powers to a Deputy Collector and it is by virtue of such delegated powers that the Deputy Collector appears to have heard the revision application.

(3.) IN my opinion, the learned Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to revise the findings of fact of the Mamlatdar. I, therefore, set aside the judgment of the learned Deputy Collector dated November 19, 1964, and allow the petitioner's revision application with costs. Rule made absolute.